Edward and the Problems in his Reign

One historian remarked that Edward sat down to play a game of cards and was dealt a bad hand which he played badly. An astute, if not slightly misleading, statement. I think Edward gets a bad rap and ok, a lot of it is deserving but some of the problems in his reign cannot simply be left at his door.

As mentioned earlier, Edward had been left a lot of debt from his fathers constant campaigning in Scotland. £200,000 might not sound like a great sum in modern minds, but in the medieval period it was a small fortune. A depleted treasury meant Edward already started his kingship with problems. Add to this a crisis in Europe and its no wonder our little king was having difficulties.

Famine 1315-17

In the fourteenth century there was a world wide famine. It came amidst the growing raids in the north, the revolt in Bristol against Bartholomew Badlesmere (one of the rebels who stood with Lancaster in the civil war) and the battle for the Clare inheritance. Edward appears to have taken the blame for the famine – although how he had any control over nature is ridiculous. To a medieval mind it was justified. It was compared to the plagues of Egypt and was attributed as divine retribution against the king for going against the wishes of god. Either way, it put intense strain on the economic wellbeing of the kingdom. Prices of foodstuff had to rise and poverty and starvation amongst the peasant population were rife. The famine and debt left by Longshanks could be used to argue that Edward was a victim of economic events and that is one of many reasons as to why he never managed to get a grip of his kingdom.

Political Jealousies

Edward obviously did not help his own case. His reliance on favourites (whether they were lovers or not is irrelevant at this juncture) caused tension between the King and his other magnates. It is important to understand the nature of politics in this period to realise the damage this did.

Lords relied on the king to further their social standing through the act of patronage. By doing a good deed the king would reward his men with lands and money. However, Gaveston – and later Despenser – detracted the kings attention away from the other magnates and prelates of the land, meaning patronage was unfairly distributed. Edward really never managed to exploit the act of patronage well. In fact, in all honesty he sucked at it.

Having favourites also caused other more serious issues. The king was relied upon to sort our petty domestic disputes before it led to the unfurling of banners (the official declaration of war) and because only a select few had his ear, it caused arguments to get out of hand. The one that springs to mind is between Lancaster and Warenne after the latter abducted the formers wife. Despenser even went so far as to decide who could see the king and who could not. It is clear from the Ordinances, and even the clause added to the coronation oath, that the magnates tried to redress this balance, but never succeeded. The majority of the problems in the reign seem to come from the unfair treatment of some individuals who were less favoured than others. Audley and Damory lost their lands in the Marches following their inheritance from their marriages to the Clare sisters and yet Despenser remained untouchable, protected by the king. Gaveston’s raise to earl of Cornwall, a title that was usually reserved for the kings brothers, and Edward’s bestowal of gifts on him, had already caused resentments early on in the reign and Edward was repeating the same mistakes. I think it is safe to say that Edward was generous beyond measure to those he loved, but that he ignored everyone else outside of that circle.

Lack of Earls

The breakdown in the Marches prior to the civil war was a big turning point in the reign of Edward. It not only led to localised violence, but it was used as an excuse to settle old scores – especially against the pesky Despensers who had taken more or less control of the area.

During the latter part of Edward’s reign, we start to see a break up in the Court due to the favouritism of the Despensers. Even Isabella was severely put out by the man.

It is also worth noting that Edward was severally lacking in earls at this point. Many of them had died in the Scottish campaigns under Longshanks and had never been replaced. I don’t have any official sources on this but my lecturer mentioned that unlike other kings, Edward’s earls were depleted – and the ones he did have, he didn’t particularly like. His distain for Lancaster was probably warranted because of the murder of Gaveston, but there seems to be little love lost between the king and the others. Due to this lack of nobility, there was a distinct scrabble for titles and land, which, in hindsight, Edward could have exploited to his advantage, gaining loyal vassals in the process. However the king either didn’t recognise the uses of patronage, or he chose to raise those he favoured.

Sources Used:

• Prestwich, M, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377, (Methuen and Co. LTD ,1980)
• Tuck A, Crown and Nobility, 1272-1461 (Oxford Blackwell, 2nd edition 1999)
  

De Clares and their inheritance

After Gaveston’s death in 1312, a new cluster of favourites began to emerge at the Royal Court: Hugh Audley, Roger Damory (sometimes called Amory), and William Montague. Edward favoured the first two with marriages to his nieces, Elizabeth and Margaret de Clare. Eleanor was already married to Hugh Despenser the younger.

With the death of the heirless Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, at Bannockburn, the issue of the Earldom became a serious problem. Gilbert’s widow claimed she was pregnant with his child for the two years following the Earls death, a lie that Edward seemed content to allow as he sought out favourable marriages for the two widowed Clare sisters, Elizabeth and Margaret. But these claims were finally put to rest after she – obviously - didn’t give birth. I’m not entirely sure how long she would have kept up the ludicrous notion that she was with child, but it’s an eye rolling moment anyway.

The inheritance, due to a will left by their father, was split between the three sisters and Gilbert’s widow in 1317. it amounted to some £6000 per year – which was a helluva lot of money. It makes it more understandable why these two women were so sought after. Marrying them brought instant prestige – not only as nieces to the king, but also because of the wealth they possessed.

According to the article on the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography by Hamilton, the land was split between the three heiresses. Eleanor, the eldest and wife of Hugh Despense, was given Glamorgan and Tewkesbury. Margaret and Hugh Audley were given Gwynllŵg, the castle of Tonbridge and associated manors in Kent, and the youngest, Elizabeth, and her husband Roger Damory were given Usk, the honour of Clare, and manors in Dorset.

The main problem was that the de Clare heiresses were sitting on a goldmine. Gloucester was a great catch and Hugh Despenser the younger wanted the Earldom and the wealth that came with it. He tried to expand his lands of Glamorgan, forcing his brother in law, Hugh Audley (married to Margaret, Gaveston’s widow) to hand over the Welsh lands he had inherited from the Clare settlement. This in itself did not go unanswered and led to a Marcher rising in 1321 (essentially the beginning of the Civil War).

Eleanor de Clare

The eldest of the three heiresses, her marriage to Hugh Despenser was completed when Edward Longshanks, her maternal grandfather, was still alive. She became extremely wealthy following the death of her brother, the Earl of Gloucester and as such, Hugh himself became an important lord in the country.

Hugh however was ambitious and ruthless in that ambition. Every time I read his actions I find myself shaking my head because I know where his arrogance leads him. He immediately started trying to pull the Earldom of Gloucester back together, seizing the lands that had been given to the other Clare sisters.

It would be wrong to blame the entire civil war on Despenser’s land grabbing in the Welsh Marches, because there were already underlying tensions there prior to this, but the action did fuel the fire. Despenser successfully alienated himself from the other Marcher lords such as the Earl of Hereford, Roger Mortimer, Hugh Audley, Roger Damory and others.

Caerphilly Castle, South Wales. Belonged to the Clare family and passed to Despenser. It was the site of the rebellion in 1316 by Llywelyn Bren. Having been there myself I have to say it is a truly forboding place and I can imagine the difficulties that arose from trying to siege it. The moat is frigging huge.

The king was finally forced to intervene before full out war broke and seized Gower into royal hands. However the damage had already been done and under the command of Lancaster and Hereford, they attacked Despenser.

Margaret de Clare

Second eldest of the Clare sisters. Married to Gaveston on the 1 November 1307 at Berkhamsted. Margaret and Gaveston had one daughter, Joan, born in York on 12 January 1312. Gaveston was executed by his political enemies in June 1312, and in September the king endowed the widowed Margaret de Clare with lands valued at 2000 marks per annum. This arrangement was modified in December 1316, but the new settlement provided her with the same annual revenues.

On 28 April 1317 she married at Windsor, Hugh Audley. In September 1318 Audley and Margaret unsuccessfully petitioned the York parliament for possession of the earldom of Cornwall, which had been part of her first husbands’ lands.

Of the three sisters, Margaret came off less well in the division of the Clare inheritance and after her lands in South Wales were taken by Despenser, Audley joined the Marcher lords, and fought under Lancaster.

He was captured during the battle of Boroughbridge and imprisoned between 1322 and 1326. unlike the other lords in the rebellion who were brutally executed, Margaret’s interception saved her husband from the chopping block.

Elizabeth de Clare

Elizabeth married John de Burgh, Earl of Ulster and the brother of Gilbert’s wife, in 1308.

February 1316, Elizabeth, widowed some three years earlier, was abducted by a man called Theobald de Verdon, who claimed she had been betrothed to him in Ireland. He died no more than five months later, but not before Elizabeth fell pregnant with her daughter, Isabella. Edward, wanting a man he could trust in such a high position of power, began to persuade Elizabeth to marry his favourite, Damory and in May 1317 they were joined.

She was forced into turning over her castle at Usk to her brother-in-law, Hugh Despenser and later she also lost Gower. Usk was eventually returned to her in 1327 by Edward III, but during the rise of the Despenser’s she never managed to regain her welsh lands.

Sources Used:

• Hamilton, J.S, ‘Clare, Margaret de, countess of Gloucester (1291/2?–1342)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, Sept 2004)
• Hamilton, J.S, ‘Despenser, Hugh, the younger, first Lord Despenser (d. 1326)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, Sept 2004)
• Maddicott, J.R, ‘Audley, Hugh, earl of Gloucester (c.1291–1347)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004)
• Prestwich, M, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377, (Methuen and Co. LTD ,1980)
• Tuck A, Crown and Nobility, 1272-1461 (Oxford Blackwell, 2nd edition 1999)
• Ward, J, ‘Clare, Elizabeth de (1294/5–1360)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, Sept 2004)

Battle of Bannockburn 1314

The Battle of Bannockburn – or Stirling – occurred on the 23-24 June, 1314 between the King of England, Edward, and Robert the Bruce. It’s described as the worst English loss and the greatest Scottish victory. I’m not going to go into tactics and strategies… because frankly I don’t understand enough about it to do it justice. There are some pretty good books out there on it anyway by people who understand military history much better than I do.

Bannockburn started with several raids by the Scots into Northern England. Distracted by Gaveston’s murder and the Ordinances, Bruce sought the opportunity to strengthen his position.
It began with the seizure of Perth and was followed by castles being taken from Dumfriesshire and Galloway. Bruce moved further, taking the Isle of Man in may 1313, meaning the only remaining major strongholds in Scotland where Stirling Castle, and a number of fortresses in Linlithgow, Dunbar, Berwick and Roxburgh – none of which had gone over to Bruce yet. Linlithgow, Edinburgh and Roxburgh fell between September 1313 and March 1314.

An arrangement was made between Bruce’s brother, Edward Bruce, and the English force at Stirling. Unable to successfully besiege the castle and no sign of an end point they came to an agreement. If the king did not deploy a force by Midsummer Day 1314 then the English would surrender Stirling. Edward, hearing this challenge was forced to act.

Dissent amongst Edward and his magnates was evidently still an issue as Lancaster, Warwick, Arundel, and Warenne did not participate in the battle. The reasons for this are uncertain, but speculation has led historians to think that perhaps these men feared the repercussions of an English victory. It is possible the battle could have been used as an excuse to rid the kingdom of the men who had helped to kill Gaveston. The Earls refused to go, claiming that such a battle had not been agreed by parliament.

The effect this had on the battle itself is largely unknown, and although there is speculation over whether or not the loss of these magnates disadvantaged the English, it is just that – speculation. But the general gist of why the English lost so badly was because the Scots were able to chose the ground on which to fight, leaving the English in less than suitable conditions, and because the English were largely unprepared for the battle. Add to that the fact that Edward was decidedly a poor military leader who did not have the stomach for warfare and the fact that Scottish force were more disciplined and you have the recipe for defeat.

There was an argument over who would lead the vanguard (Gloucester or Hereford) and Edward was unable to resolve the debate between the two Earls. In many respects this shows the lack of control Edward had over his vassals. When the battle commenced, Gloucester rode ahead, wanting to be the first to engage the enemy and seek the glory. Abandoned by Bartholomew Badlesmere, he was promptly killed at the meagre age of twenty-three, leaving behind no heir. This in itself had major repercussions for the rest of Edward’s reign. The Earldom of Gloucester passed to his three sisters and led to a power struggle. Not only that, but Edward lost a great mediator and a valuable ally.

Bannockburn’s political implications caused further problems than the de Clare’s inheritance. Edward had lost magnificently and the Scottish expelled the English from all of Scotland – only retaining a hold on Berwick.

Sources Used:

• Altschul, M, ‘Clare, Gilbert de, eighth earl of Gloucester and seventh earl of Hertford (1291–1314)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004
• Prestwich, M, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377, (Methuen and Co. LTD ,1980)
• Tuck A, Crown and Nobility, 1272-1461 (Oxford Blackwell, 2nd edition 1999)

The Ordinances 1308-1313

Edward’s kingdom was already in trouble very early on in his reign. His abandonment of the Scottish campaign that his father had begun led to dissent amongst a number of nobles who had lands there and resented the lack of support from the crown. Gaveston’s recall from exile was causing major tensions and the Vita Edwardi Secundi even suggests that Piers was so unpopular because ‘he alone found favour in the king’s eyes.’ (Vita)

Further tensions arose during December 1307 when Gaveston partook in a tournament and beat most of the Lords involved. It only added fuel to an already burning fire and Edward himself made the situation worse by making Gaveston the Keeper of the Realm when he went to complete his marriage to Isabella in France. Not only that, but Gaveston had his hand in the Royal Treasury which was already heavily indebted. Issues with high taxation and extreme poverty of the people was becoming a running theme.

It was in January of 1308 when the first official vocalisation of opposition to Edward was heard. The Boulogne Document, drawn up by the Bishop of Durham, the Earls of Lincoln, Surrey, Pembroke, Hereford and five other barons declared that they wanted to reform the kingdom, citing crimes against the right of the crown, against the kings honour and against the people as the reasons for such letters. However they were pretty careful about doing so. It’s a fine line between treason and doing what’s best for the crown. It’s the whole argument of getting around the fact the monarch is preordained by god and is a subject of god. Religion in those days was a big issue. They tried to get around the idea of treason by stating they were loyal to the crown and the king, but by passing the blame onto others for leading the king astray. You can guess who got the blame for that… yup, Gaveston. Boulogne is an important document because it tries to differentiate between the Office of the King and the Kings person. Essentially, this is the argument that comes when deposing Edward later on. The line in the agreement that stands out is:

“…was done before this time against his honour and the rights of his crown.”

Whether or not the kings person and the office of the king can be separate entities is an argument for another day. It’s rather a complex discussion.

Further dislike of Gaveston and his influence continued to grow because of his lavish behaviour at the Coronation of Edward in February 1308, but it was the addition of a new clause put into the Coronation Oath itself that is most telling. It’s not very exciting but here is a translation of the Oath in 1308 taken from the Foedera:

Sire, are you willing to grant and preserve and by your oath confirm to the people of England the laws and customs granted to them by former kings of England, your righteous and godly predecessors, and particularly the laws, customs and liberties granted to the clergy and the people by the glorious king St. Edward, your predecessor?

Sire, will you for God and the holy church and for the clergy and for the people keep peace and accord in God, to the best of your ability, intact?

Sire, will you in all your judgement have impartial and improper justice and discretion done in compassion and truth to the best of your ability?

Sire do you agree to maintain and preserve the laws and rightful customs which the community of your realm shall have chosen and will you defend and enforce them to the honour of God to the best of your ability?

The first two clauses are usual in the Oath, but the last is a new addition. Note the future perfect tense in the last clause, as if it has been anticipated that Edward will misbehave.

The Ordinances were documents that dealt with the grievances Edward had done against his magnates. Edward was pretty much forced into accepting a counsel of Ordainers. His recall of Gaveston from exile in June 1309 led to the Statute of Stamford in which concessions were made for the return of Gaveston’s wealth and lands – a small price to pay for the return of Edward’s favourite. However, Gaveston’s return wasn’t the main issues of the Statute. Other problems were rife and the magnates were unsettled – mainly financial and administrative issues that were left by Edward Longshanks after his death. Gaveston didn’t do much to help himself however. Rather than returning quietly, he riled up the other Earls by gifting them with nicknames that weren’t exactly flattering. Discord grew further and, whilst the Earl of Lincoln was reconciled with the King, Lancaster – the kings own cousin – grew estranged. Why the king and Lancs fell out isn’t really known. Several chroniclers mention it, but the information is tenuous at best. One mentions that Gaveston removed a member of Lancaster’s household from office, whilst another suggests that it was Gaveston’s recall itself. In more recent years it has been suggested that Lancaster was actually interesting in reforming government, rather than preventing Gaveston’s return.

By October 1309 ill-will towards Gaveston was becoming an issue however – so much so that the Earls of Lancaster, Lincoln, Warwick, Oxford and Arundel refused to attend a Council in York because of the Earl of Cornwall. They stated they would not come whilst the chief enemy of the kingdom was lurking in the king’s chamber, as it would be unsafe for them to do come (Vita) There was some discussion about the Earls attending only if they were armed, which Edward immediately told them under no uncertain terms to do, but he shifted Gaveston off to a safe hiding place. The Earls eventually came to parliament, but they ignored the Kings request and came armed.

By the parliament of 1310, a list of objections about the kings’ behaviour since he took the throne emerged. They included accusations such as he had been led by evil counsel, had become so impoverished that he could not defend the realm nor provide upkeep for his household, and that he had lost the lands in Scotland that his father had left for him. They over looked the £200,000 debt left by Edward’s father.

The king tried to ignore the petition put down by the Earls but the talk of civil war forced Edward to accept what they were asking. On the 16th march, 1310 twenty-one lord Ordainers were appointed – their aim was to reform the kings household and the kingdom. Only two earls, Warenne and Oxford, did not join the campaign for reform. It clearly shows how much Edward had segregated his magnates from him.

Edward, however, wasn’t content to sit back and take the Ordinances. He immediately began to organise a Scottish campaign and moved his law courts and exchequer to York – perhaps to hinder the Ordainers work. Further dissent became obvious when Pembroke, Arundel, Hereford and Lancaster refused to attend the expedition to Scotland. The Earl of Lincoln’s death in 1311 strengthened Lancaster’s position further as his lands passed to the Kings cousin. The Scots campaign didn’t amount to anything anyway and Edward’s hand was forced when a disagreement between Gloucester and Lancaster threatened to spill into violence. Tension was growing and even with the disunity of the Ordainers, civil war against the king by his magnates was beginning to look like a very real possibility. Backed into a corner, Edward relented and published the ordinances on the 30 September, 1311.

The main clause the contemporary chroniclers recorded was the banishment of Gaveston. He was accused of misleading the king, embezzling the royal treasury, forcing the king to alienate crown land, and encouraging the king to make war against his barons without consent. Gaveston was given till All Saints day in 1311 to leave the kingdom. Gaveston’s favouritism with the king became the backdrop for the Ordinances.

Despite all the talk, the Ordainers didn’t really have much power to enact them. the king still had the final say over the daily running of government and he also had the power to manipulate the officers of the state.

A second set of ordinances were drawn up in November 1311, despite the fact their powers had been dispelled by Michaelmas (29 September). The documents weren’t legal and resulted in the king’s irritation at being treated like a child. Gaveston was smuggled back into the kingdom, despite his exile and was rumoured to have spent Christmas with the king. Edward sought to get rid of the ordinances and reinstate Gaveston.

Gaveston’s return led to his excommunication by Archbishop Winchelsea, and Lancs, Pembroke, Hereford, Arundel and Warwick promised to bring about Cornwall’s arrest. Edward’s behaviour even forced the neutral earls to back the Ordainers.

The king fled to Newcastle with Gaveston, but was followed by Lancaster. Gaveston fled to Scarborough whilst the King moved to Knaresborough. Without the King’s protection, Gaveston was forced to surrender to Pembroke on the 19 May 1312. Warwick intercepted Pembroke and took Gaveston from him, holding the Earl at Warwick castle, whilst the earls debated how to proceed legally. Gaveston was sentenced to death for treason under the authority of the Ordinances – the legality of the act somewhat questionable. Gaveston was executed on 19 June 1312 at Blacklow Hill.

Gaveston’s death solidified Edward’s and Lancaster’s shaky relationship. Pembroke was angry with Warwick for seizing the earl of Cornwall, and civil war seemed likely. It was Gloucester who managed to mediate and finally a truce was reached.

By October 1313 a public apology was made for the murder of Gaveston, acknowledging that they had killed him when the Ordinances were not in motion – therefore illegally.

Over all the ordinances were a failure and did little to reform the kingdom. New problems in Scotland forced the issue to the back of the Earls minds.

Sources Used:

• Childs, W, Vita Edwardi Secundi, (Oxford University Press, 2005)
• Foedera, II, i, p.36, from a schedule attached to the Close Roll
• Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. 18 ff. 1v, 80 printed in J.R.S. Phillips, Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke 1307-1324 (Oxford, 1972), appendix 4
• Prestwich, M, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377, (Methuen and Co. LTD ,1980)
• Tuck A, Crown and Nobility, 1272-1461 (Oxford Blackwell, 2nd edition 1999).